”What gets measured

gets done”

- Peter Drucker
 Is the form that shall reflect the individual
commitments and performance, which shall
be accomplished by individual employees.
 All employees shall accomplish their respective IPCR to establish
the individual performance commitments for the rating period in
accordance with the targets contained in their respective OPCRs
 The IPCRs must contain the SI (Success Indicators) for all
strategic/core/support targeted for the rating period by the
employee corresponding to the parameters of his/her respective
supervisor’s OPCR
 Upon finalization of the IPCR, the employee and the supervisor
shall sign the document to establish that the performance targets
indicated therein were discussed and mutually agreed upon
 The employee shall only sign the IPCR when prior discussions and
agreements with his/her supervisor have been made
Name of Individual Position
Staff

Signature of Individual
Staff (Ratee)

Date when performance

commitment is made at the
beginning of rating period
 Not all performance accomplishments
need to be rated along all three
dimensions of quality, efficiency and
timeliness. Some accomplishments may
only be rated on any combination of two
or three dimensions. In other cases, only
one dimension may be sufficient.
Consider all the elements involved listed
above in each dimension and use them
Q- Quality
as guides to determine how
E- Efficiency
performance will be rated.
T-Timeliness
 In computing the final rating of the office and individual performance the
following weight allocation shall be followed.

For office with Strategic Objectives

20% Strategic Objectives
70% Core Functions
10% Support Functions (Intervening Functions

For office without Strategic Objectives

70% Core Functions
30% Support Functions (Intervening Functions
Strategic Functions These are outputs that implement and
deliver the mandates of the agency as
identified its strategy roadmap
Core Functions These are functions that implement and
deliver the mandates of the local
government of Sablayan, as provided by
R.A 7160 known as the Local government
code of the Philippines
Support Functions These are functions that provide
necessary resources to enable the agency
to effectively perform its mandate.
 Quality

Efficiency

Timeliness
 Category Definition
Quality (Effectiveness) Extent to which natural
Q performance compares with target
performance.
Measurable and quantifiable or
verifiable of success indicators Degree to which objectives are
achieved and targeted problems are
solved
Efficiency Extent to which time or resources is
E used for the intended task or
Provides a sense of whether the office is
clearly the things right with expected
purpose. Quantity of waste expense
effectively or unnecessary effort spent out in the
accomplishment of task
Timeliness Timeliness of the work per
T requirement of law and or
clients/stakeholders.
Measure whether the deliverable was done Turnaround time (in minutes, hours,
on time based on the requirements of the days, months, etc.), cycle time, claim
law and or clients/stakeholders
processing time, response time, target
date or deadline, product
development rate, delivery time, etc.
MC no. 6s. 2012
 Rating Description
Numerical Adjectival
5 Outstanding Above 120% meeting the
success indicators
4 Very Satisfactory 101% to 120% of the success
indicators
3 Satisfactory 80% to 100% of the success
indicators
2 Unsatisfactory 50% to 79.99% of the success
indicators
1 Poor Below 50% of the success
indicators
 Rating Description
Numerical Adjectival
5 Outstanding Documents submitted 5
days prior to deadline
4 Very Satisfactory Documents submitted 3
days prior to deadline
3 Satisfactory Documents submitted on
the day of the deadline
2 Unsatisfactory Documents submitted 3
days after the deadline
1 Poor Documents submitted 5
days of more after the
deadline
 Rating Description
Numerical Adjectival
5 Outstanding Above 120% meeting the
success indicators
4 Very Satisfactory 101% to 120% of the success
indicators
3 Satisfactory 80% to 100% of the success
indicators
2 Unsatisfactory 50% to 79.99% of the success
indicators
1 Poor Below 50% of the success
indicators
ER = Number of request acted upon x 100%
Number of Request Received
Success Indicators Actual Accomplishments Q E T Ave
(Targets Measures) Average is obtained by
dividing the total by the
Draft PRIME HRM Certifying Board Draft PRIME HRM Certifying Board 4 4 4 number of dimensions:
Standards for Seal of Excellence Standards for Seal of Excellence
4+4/ 2=4
approved by the Director by March approved by the Director upon second
1 presentation and with minimal
changes on March 3
Average is obtained by
Proposal on the PRIME HRM Proposal on the PRIME HRM 5 2 3.5 dividing the total by the
Orientation approved by the Orientation approved by the Director
number of dimensions:
Director by the end of February upon first submission on March 10
5+5+4=14/3
Draft replies to queries submitted Draft replies to 75 queries submitted to 5 5 4 4.67 =4.67
to the Director within 10 working the Director within 9 working days
days upon receipt by the HRPSO upon receipt by the HRPSO
Position paper/comments on Draft Position paper and HRMO item 4 3 3.5 Final Average Rating is
legislative bills submitted within in the LGU submitted on the deadline obtained by adding all the
the time frame prescribed by the set by the CSLO average ratings vertically and
CSLO dividing the sum (Total
Rating) by the number of
APCCO staff recommended for 3 APCCO shall recommended for 5 5
training/HR programs
accomplishments:
training/HR program
Total Rating 20.67 4+3.5+4.67+3.5+5=20.67/5
=4.13
Final Average Rating 4.13
 Submitted at the end of the rating period and
submitted to CSC Field Office
Summary of Ratings
______________ Noted by the LCE
(Department)
For the Year ____________

No. Name of Employee Position Title PERFORMANCE RATING

1st Semester 2nd Semester Average

8
 All employees must submit their
respective IPCRs within the timeline
set by PMT, specifically before the
start of a particular rating period

 Non-submission of IPCR carries

administrative sanctions pursuant to
provisions of CSC-MC 6, 2012